5 ms·

I hate to beat a dead horse and have people downvote me but: the EU has always been corrupted. The knowledge and effects are not evenly distributed until it hit

by onlytue 5mo ago

I hate to beat a dead horse and have people downvote me but: the EU has always been corrupted. The knowledge and effects are not evenly distributed until it hits each niche group. Then they find out the hard way that they were useful idiots. It’s ok to be wrong/admit. Let’s just move past the infighting and see those in power for the evil that they are.

rvz 5mo ago
Exactly. I have said this for a very long time and the EU (and many other governments) are not our friends and they are just as corrupt. Remember ChatControl? Anytime anyone criticises the EU here, you will get downvoted even after trying to warn the EU defenders that they are not our friends at all. I was asking for evidence about the EU digital ID wallets about what the "disinformation" was around it 3 years ago [0] and not a single link of it was given. At this point, being an EU defender and supporting the "open web" are incompatible since you will be using your EU digital identity wallet [1] with your phone to login to your bank and the internet will push age verification with it, locking you out if you don't sign up. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36105002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36105002 [1] https://eudi.dev/latest/ https://eudi.dev/latest/
- palata 5mo ago
  > Remember ChatControl? That thing that got refused multiple times already? Because not all politicians think like you does not mean they are corrupt. Seems like enough politicians have voted against ChatControl until now. I always wonder what people who say stuff like "politicians discussed this topic I hate and refused it, but the mere fact that they discussed means that they must all be corrupt" understand about politics. You know that it is about people with different opinions (representing people with different opinions) discussing stuff, right?
  - miohtama 5mo ago
    The Commission got it through on the last round, though, so eventually it passed.
    - palata 5mo ago
      So ChatControl was accepted and is in the process of being implemented is what you say?
    - surgical_fire 5mo ago
      Bullshit. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eu-parliament-blocks-mass-scanning-our-chats-whats-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eu-parliament-blocks-m...
    - EmbarrassedHelp 5mo ago
      Chat Control hasn't passed yet. But the Chat Control lobbyists are still lobbying for it behind the scenes, and are currently pushing for all phone calls in the EU to be covered. Source: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/8612-2026-Document-CSAM-%E2%80%94-presidency-compromise.pdf https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/861... https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer
      - izacus 5mo ago
        So what should be done about it? EU Commission issue a decree that it should never be spoken or debated again in public? Never proposed? Any other tyrannical idea? Do you have a list of other things that shouldn't be brought in front of the elected parliament?
- dijit 5mo ago
  (ignorant) people proposing things does not mean corruption: the fact that these things are voted down and never pass is proof that the system works, not evidence of corruption. Corruption would be if it passed despite it being unpopular, because some corporate or rich peoples interests desired it.
- surgical_fire 5mo ago
  > Exactly. I have said this for a very long time and the EU (and many other governments) are not our friends and they are just as corrupt. Remember ChatControl? The EU parliament shot down ChatControl. In fact, without the EU, most likely many member states would have ChatControl in some shape. National governments are the ones all in on this crap.
graemep 5mo ago
Governments are place a higher priority on controlling internal threats than external ones. In this case the EU wants to control its own people more than it wants to avoid deoendence on the US. It would like both,but the former is more important
epistasis 5mo ago
The question isn't if there's corruption, the question is who is behind the corruption. Condescendingly and incorrectly assuming that others think that corruption is impossible is kinda rude and also dodges attempts at correcting the corruption.
- AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
  Not only that, "corruption" is pretty squishy. Let's apply Hanlon's Razor for once. Google et al go to the government and say they've got this attestation thing that can something something security. No one is taking a bribe but also no one they're hearing from is telling them that doing this is going to cement the incumbents. "Security" is good, right? So it makes it into the law. That doesn't meet most formal definitions of corruption. It's more like incompetence than malice. But the outcome is indistinguishable from corruption. The bad thing gets into the law. The difference is, if the politicians are taking bribes and you get mad at them, they fob you off because they're more interested in lining their pockets. But if the politicians are just misinformed bureaucrats and you get mad at them, they might actually fix it. And attributing everything to "corruption" discourages people from doing the latter even in cases where it would be effective.
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    > Google et al go to the government and say The money that goes into lobbying in order to have that say is, depending on who you ask, corruption. I, as a random citizen, don't get the same say that a multi billion dollar international corporation does.
    - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
      That seems like a pretty useless definition of corruption. It implies that retirees writing letters to Congress is "corruption" because working people don't have the same amount of free time to do that. It's also kind of weird to propose it as an asymmetry. Google's parent company spends around $4M on lobbying in the US: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000067823 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... That's around $0.01 per capita. Your per capita contribution for individuals to out-spend Google on lobbying is two cents.

by onlytue 5mo ago

rvz 5mo ago

Exactly. I have said this for a very long time and the EU (and many other governments) are not our friends and they are just as corrupt. Remember ChatControl? Anytime anyone criticises the EU here, you will get downvoted even after trying to warn the EU defenders that they are not our friends at all. I was asking for evidence about the EU digital ID wallets about what the "disinformation" was around it 3 years ago [0] and not a single link of it was given. At this point, being an EU defender and supporting the "open web" are incompatible since you will be using your EU digital identity wallet [1] with your phone to login to your bank and the internet will push age verification with it, locking you out if you don't sign up. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36105002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36105002 [1] https://eudi.dev/latest/ https://eudi.dev/latest/

palata 5mo ago
> Remember ChatControl? That thing that got refused multiple times already? Because not all politicians think like you does not mean they are corrupt. Seems like enough politicians have voted against ChatControl until now. I always wonder what people who say stuff like "politicians discussed this topic I hate and refused it, but the mere fact that they discussed means that they must all be corrupt" understand about politics. You know that it is about people with different opinions (representing people with different opinions) discussing stuff, right?
- miohtama 5mo ago
  The Commission got it through on the last round, though, so eventually it passed.
  - palata 5mo ago
    So ChatControl was accepted and is in the process of being implemented is what you say?
  - surgical_fire 5mo ago
    Bullshit. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eu-parliament-blocks-mass-scanning-our-chats-whats-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eu-parliament-blocks-m...
  - EmbarrassedHelp 5mo ago
    Chat Control hasn't passed yet. But the Chat Control lobbyists are still lobbying for it behind the scenes, and are currently pushing for all phone calls in the EU to be covered. Source: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/8612-2026-Document-CSAM-%E2%80%94-presidency-compromise.pdf https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/861... https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer
    - izacus 5mo ago
      So what should be done about it? EU Commission issue a decree that it should never be spoken or debated again in public? Never proposed? Any other tyrannical idea? Do you have a list of other things that shouldn't be brought in front of the elected parliament?
dijit 5mo ago
(ignorant) people proposing things does not mean corruption: the fact that these things are voted down and never pass is proof that the system works, not evidence of corruption. Corruption would be if it passed despite it being unpopular, because some corporate or rich peoples interests desired it.
surgical_fire 5mo ago
> Exactly. I have said this for a very long time and the EU (and many other governments) are not our friends and they are just as corrupt. Remember ChatControl? The EU parliament shot down ChatControl. In fact, without the EU, most likely many member states would have ChatControl in some shape. National governments are the ones all in on this crap.

graemep 5mo ago

Governments are place a higher priority on controlling internal threats than external ones. In this case the EU wants to control its own people more than it wants to avoid deoendence on the US. It would like both,but the former is more important

epistasis 5mo ago

The question isn't if there's corruption, the question is who is behind the corruption. Condescendingly and incorrectly assuming that others think that corruption is impossible is kinda rude and also dodges attempts at correcting the corruption.

AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
Not only that, "corruption" is pretty squishy. Let's apply Hanlon's Razor for once. Google et al go to the government and say they've got this attestation thing that can something something security. No one is taking a bribe but also no one they're hearing from is telling them that doing this is going to cement the incumbents. "Security" is good, right? So it makes it into the law. That doesn't meet most formal definitions of corruption. It's more like incompetence than malice. But the outcome is indistinguishable from corruption. The bad thing gets into the law. The difference is, if the politicians are taking bribes and you get mad at them, they fob you off because they're more interested in lining their pockets. But if the politicians are just misinformed bureaucrats and you get mad at them, they might actually fix it. And attributing everything to "corruption" discourages people from doing the latter even in cases where it would be effective.
- fragmede 5mo ago
  > Google et al go to the government and say The money that goes into lobbying in order to have that say is, depending on who you ask, corruption. I, as a random citizen, don't get the same say that a multi billion dollar international corporation does.
  - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
    That seems like a pretty useless definition of corruption. It implies that retirees writing letters to Congress is "corruption" because working people don't have the same amount of free time to do that. It's also kind of weird to propose it as an asymmetry. Google's parent company spends around $4M on lobbying in the US: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000067823 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... That's around $0.01 per capita. Your per capita contribution for individuals to out-spend Google on lobbying is two cents.